Actor Leonard Nimoy — Mr. Spock to his legions of Star Trek fans — has died at age 83 from a destructive lung disease called COPD, telling his fans in a poignant tweet last month: “Don’t smoke. I did. Wish I never had.”

His wife confirmed his death to the New York Times, saying the cause was end-stage COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He had been hospitalized earlier in the week.

COPD is one of the most common lung diseases and the third leading cause of death in the U.S., causing nearly 135,000 deaths a year. There is no cure. COPD causes inflammation and damage to the lung tissue, making it increasingly difficult to breathe. Symptoms include a chronic cough, shortness of breath and frequent respiratory infections.

Smoking is the most common cause of COPD, but quitting smoking slows the disease’s progress, lung experts say. Nimoy had been a smoker but had quit 30 years ago. So how could smoking still play a role in his death?

“That’s the most common question patients ask me — ‘I’ve quit smoking; how could I have COPD?’ ” says Ravi Kalhan, M.D., director of the asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease program at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Unfortunately, he says, there’s no way to undo damage to lung tissue that occurred when a person was smoking. “We can control it with medication, like you would diabetes or high blood pressure, but we can’t cure it.”

Still, quitting smoking is a critical step. “The best thing [Nimoy] did was to quit, because it prolonged his life,” says Albert Rizzo, M.D., senior medical adviser to the American Lung Association. As patients get older, however, they often find it harder for their damaged lungs to fight off respiratory infections, he adds.

Nimoy, famous as the half-Vulcan, half-human first officer on the Starship Enterprise, had announced last year that he was battling COPD and urged his friends and fans to stop smoking. “I quit smoking 30 yrs ago. Not soon enough. I have COPD. Grandpa says, quit now!! LLAP,” he tweeted. (“LLAP” stands for his oft-repeated Vulcan salutation, “Live long and prosper.”)

A little-known actor before he was cast as the pointy-eared, ceaselessly logical sidekick to William Shatner’s Captain Kirk in the Star Trek television series, Nimoy went on to have an eclectic career as a movie actor and director, writer, poet and singer. In his 40s, he even earned a master’s degree in Spanish, the Times reported.

In tribute to the actor, Shatner wrote on Facebook, “I loved him like a brother. We will all miss his humor, his talent, and his capacity to love.” And fellow actor George Takei, who played Sulu on the series, tweeted: “Today, the world lost a great man, and I lost a great friend. We return you now to the stars, Leonard. You taught us to ‘Live Long And Prosper,’ and you indeed did, friend. I shall miss you in so many, many ways.”

Even President Obama tweeted, “I loved Spock,” adding in a press release, “Long before nerdy was cool, there was Leonard Nimoy.”

Obama said he met the actor in 2007, greeting him, of course, with, “Live long and prosper.” The president added, “And after 83 years on this planet — and on his visits to so many others — it’s clear Leonard Nimoy did just that.”

]]>http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/a-sad-lesson-about-copd-from-leonard-nimoy/feed/0Rev. Theodore Hesburgh: Legendary Notre Dame Presidenthttp://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/rev-theodore-hesburgh-legendary-notre-dame-president/
http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/rev-theodore-hesburgh-legendary-notre-dame-president/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 21:45:32 +0000http://blog.aarp.org/?p=117388When asked at his 1952 inauguration as president of Notre Dame to pose with a pigskin, as if he were a successor to Knute Rockne,the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh said, “I’m not the football coach. I’m the president.”

Indeed, during his 35-year career at the school, Hesburgh, who passed away Feb. 26 at age 97 on the campus in South Bend, Ind., became far more influential than any gridiron hero. He turned Notre Dame into an academic powerhouse, became a confidant of U.S. presidents and wielded influence on the international stage.

Of his achievements, he said he was was proudest of admitting women to Notre Dame in 1972.

Keeping long office hours, he sometimes chatted with students who climbed a fire escape to tap on his window late at night.

In 1964, he joined with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead a rally at Soldier Field in Chicago in support of landmark civil rights legislation.

President Lyndon B. Johnson awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

During the Vietnam War, he tried to limit demonstrations by imposing a “15 minute rule,” meaning students who disrupted the school’s operation would be given 15 minutes to cease or face expulsion.

When, during Hesburgh’s chairmanship in 1972, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights criticized the government for not enforcing anti-discrimination laws, President Richard Nixon demanded and received his resignation.

Fascinated with aviation, he once convinced President Jimmy Carter to allow him to fly aboard the Air Force’s SR-71 Blackbird supersonic spy plane.

As a Vatican diplomat, he served as a go-between for the United States and Soviet Union on arms limitation.

]]>http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/rev-theodore-hesburgh-legendary-notre-dame-president/feed/05 Things to Know About the Obamacare Court Casehttp://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/5-things-to-know-about-the-obamacare-court-case/
http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/5-things-to-know-about-the-obamacare-court-case/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 19:59:20 +0000http://blog.aarp.org/?p=117301The Affordable Care Act is once again before the Supreme Court.

On March 4, the justices will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the validity of tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance if they don’t get it through an employer or the government. If the court rules against the Obama administration, those subsidies could be cut off for everyone in the three dozen states using healthcare.gov, the federal exchange website. A decision is expected by the end of June.

Here are five things you should know about the case and its potential consequences:

1. This case does not challenge the constitutionality of the health law.

The Supreme Court has already found that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. That was settled in 2012’s NFIB v. Sebelius.

At issue in this case is a line in the law stipulating that subsidies are available to those who sign up for coverage “through an exchange established by the state.” In issuing regulations to implement the subsidies in 2012, however, the IRS said that subsidies would also be available to those enrolling through the federal health insurance exchange. The agency noted Congress had never discussed limiting the subsidies to state-run exchanges and that making subsidies available to all “is consistent with the language, purpose and structure” of the law as a whole.

Last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond ruled that the regulations were a permissible interpretation of the law. While the three-judge panel agreed that the language in the law is “ambiguous,” they relied on so-called “Chevron deference,” a legal principle that takes its name from a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that held that courts must defer to a federal agency’s interpretation as long as that interpretation is not unreasonable.

Those challenging the law, however, insist that Congress intended to limit the subsidies to state exchanges. “As an inducement to state officials, the Act authorizes tax credits and subsidies for certain households that purchase health insurance through an Exchange, but restricts those entitlements to Exchanges created by states,” wrote Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler, two of the fiercest critics of the IRS interpretation, in an article in Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine.

In any case, a ruling in favor of the challengers would affect only the subsidies available in the states using the federal exchange. Those in the 13 states operating their own exchanges would be unaffected. The rest of the health law, including its expansion of Medicaid and requirements for coverage of those with preexisting conditions, would remain in effect.

2. If the court rules against the Obama administration, millions of people could be forced to give up their insurance.

A study by the Urban Institute found that if subsidies in the federal health exchange are disallowed, 9.3 million people could lose $28.8 billion of federal help paying for their insurance in just the first year. Since many of those people would not be able to afford insurance without government help, the number of uninsured could rise by 8.2 million people.

A separate study from the Urban Institute looked at those in danger of losing their coverage and found that most are low- and moderate-income white, working adults who live in the South.

3. A ruling against the Obama administration could have other effects, too.

Experts say disallowing the subsidies in the federal exchange states could destabilize the entire individual insurance market, not just the exchanges in those states. Anticipating that only those most likely to need medical services will hold onto their plans, insurers would likely increase premiums for everyone in the state who buys their own insurance, no matter where they buy it from.

“If subsidies [in the federal exchange] are eliminated, premiums would increase by about 47 percent,” said Christine Eibner of the RAND Corporation, who co-authored a study projecting a 70 percent drop in enrollment.

Eliminating tax subsidies for individuals would also affect the law’s requirement that most larger employers provide health insurance. That’s because the penalty for not providing coverage only kicks in if a worker goes to the state health exchange and receives a subsidy. If there are no subsidies, there are also no employer penalties.

Supreme Court decisions generally take effect 25 days after they are issued. That could mean that subsidies would stop flowing as soon as July or August, assuming a decision in late June. Insurers can’t drop people for nonpayment of their premiums for 90 days, although they have to continue to pay claims only for the first 30.

Although the law’s requirement that individuals have health insurance would remain in effect, no one is required to purchase coverage if the lowest-priced plan in their area costs more than 8 percent of their income. So without the subsidies, and with projected premium increases, many if not most people would become exempt.

5. Congress could make the entire issue go away by passing a one-page bill. But it won’t.

All Congress would have to do to restore the subsidies is pass a bill striking the line about subsidies being available through exchanges “established by the state.” But given how many Republicans oppose the law, leaders have already said they will not act to fix it. Republicans are still working to come up with a contingency plan should the ruling go against the subsidies. Even that will be difficult given their continuing ideological divides over health care.

States could solve the problem by setting up their own exchanges, but that is a lengthy and complicated process and in most cases requires the consent of state legislatures. And the Obama administration has no power to step in and fix things either, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said in a letter to members of Congress.

]]>http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/5-things-to-know-about-the-obamacare-court-case/feed/0Leonard Nimoy: The Pointy-Eared Icon of ‘Star Trek’http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/leonard-nimoy-star-treks-pointy-eared-icon/
http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/leonard-nimoy-star-treks-pointy-eared-icon/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 19:45:03 +0000http://blog.aarp.org/?p=117347How powerful an impression has Leonard Nimoy’s Star Trek portrayal of Spock left on American culture? Hold up your right hand in the split-fingered Vulcan salute that Nimoy invented for his relentlessly logical, dispassionate half-alien starship officer, and odds are that just about everybody in the room will get the reference.

Before Spock, Nimoy had never played a role for more than two weeks and initially had qualms, because “playing some monster or freak can be the kiss of death for an actor, and this emotionless guy with pointy ears from another planet didn’t appeal to me.”

After NBC rejected the initial pilot for Star Trek in 1965, Nimoy was the only cast member brought back for the second pilot, according to Variety.

Nimoy got the feel for the character’s personality by repeating the word “fascinating” until he got a properly lofty tone.

Spock resonated powerfully in the turbulent 1960s because he offered a “practical, reasoning voice in a period of dissension and chaos,” Nimoy once said.

During the original run of Star Trek, Nimoy turned down $50,000 in fees offered for personal appearances in costume: “They can have me,” he said, “but not the ears.”

Spock actually became such a sex symbol that the New York Times once ran a profile of Nimoy entitled, “Girls All Want to Touch the Ears.”

Famous people ranging from LSD guru Timothy Leary to President Barack Obama greeted Nimoy with the Vulcan salute, which he based on an ancient kohanic blessing.

Nimoy’s performance as Spock earned three Emmy nominations, but he never won.

After publishing an autobiography, I Am Not Spock, in 1977, he reconsidered and published a second memoir, I Am Spock, in 1995.

Portraying Spock influenced Nimoy so profoundly that he once explained: “To this day, I sense Vulcan speech patterns, Vulcan social attitudes and even Vulcan patterns of logic and emotional suppression in my behavior.”

]]>http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/leonard-nimoy-star-treks-pointy-eared-icon/feed/0Earl Lloyd: First Black NBA Playerhttp://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/earl-lloyd-first-black-nba-player/
http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/earl-lloyd-first-black-nba-player/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 18:07:34 +0000http://blog.aarp.org/?p=117330On Oct. 31, 1950, Earl Lloyd took the court as a member of the now-long-defunct Washington Capitols basketball team for a game against the Rochester Royals in New York. Lloyd’s six points and 10 rebounds were no game-changer, but his performance definitely was in another sense: It was the first time that an African American player appeared in a National Basketball Association game.

Only 2,184 spectators attended Lloyd’s history-making game and saw then-NBA President Maurice Podoloff ceremonially toss up the opening tip.

Two black players who had been drafted ahead of Lloyd — Chuck Cooper of the New York Knicks and Nat “Sweetwater” Clifton of the Boston Celtics — played their first games a day after Lloyd, according to NBA.com.

Lloyd got his nickname — and title of his 2010 autobiography — of “Moonfixer” after upperclassmen at West Virginia State jokingly insisted that he reach up and fix the moon as part of a hazing ritual.

Lloyd was relieved that his first game was in frigid Rochester, he said, because it got so cold there “that no one hates anyone.”

Just seven games into his rookie season, Lloyd was drafted into the U.S. Army and missed the rest of the season; by the time he got out of the service in 1952, the Capitols had gone out of business.

The 6-foot, 6-inch forward went on to play six seasons for the Syracuse Nationals (now the Philadelphia 76ers) and two for the Detroit Pistons before retiring with career averages of 8.4 points and 6.4 rebounds a game.

]]>http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/earl-lloyd-first-black-nba-player/feed/0Why Women Should Check a Man’s Finger Sizehttp://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/why-women-should-check-a-mans-finger-size/
http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/why-women-should-check-a-mans-finger-size/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 15:43:36 +0000http://blog.aarp.org/?p=117273OK, we know you’re smirking. This is not about how a man’s finger size is related to the size of his junk. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that — in fact, one study says it’s true.)

No, there’s another reason women might want to check the length of a man’s ring finger: It may be an indication of how nice he’ll be toward the opposite sex.

A new Canadian study says it has to do with the size ratio of a man’s index and ring fingers, determined by dividing the index finger’s length by the ring finger’s. Basically, the shorter a man’s index finger is compared with his ring finger, the more likely he is to be nice to women. Guys whose index and ring fingers are close in length or who have short ring fingers — yeah, you might want to avoid them. They’re more likely to be an argumentative pain.

Evidently it has to do with the hormones — chiefly testosterone — these men were exposed to in their mother’s wombs, according to the McGill University study, which was published in the March issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences. The smaller the ratio, the more male hormones.

Previous studies have found an association between finger-length ratio and male hormonal level, too.

In the McGill study, lead author Debbie Moskowitz, a professor of psychology, said men with smaller ratios were more likely to “listen attentively, smile and laugh,” and “compromise or compliment” a woman. Additionally, they were less quarrelsome with women than with men. Men with larger ratios were equally quarrelsome with both, she said in a statement. These results might also explain why these nicer men tend to have more children — “they have more harmonious relationships with women.”

The findings are based on 155 participants, both men and women. Researchers measured their fingers and the participants then reported every social interaction they had lasting more than five minutes over the next 20 days. Based on these reports, researchers classified the behaviors as either agreeable or quarrelsome. Men with a lower ratio between the finger lengths had about a third more agreeable interactions with women and a third fewer quarrelsome ones.

Interestingly, it didn’t matter whether the woman was a friend, work colleague or romantic partner — the finger-ratio rule held. For women, however, finger size provided no prediction of behavior.

While this study showed men with longer ring fingers getting along better with women, research last month from Oxford University suggests those men may get along a little too well with women: In that study, men, and to some extent women, with elongated fourth fingers were more likely to be promiscuous.

]]>http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/why-women-should-check-a-mans-finger-size/feed/0Customer Survey Scams: From Reward to Rip-Offhttp://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/customer-survey-scams-from-reward-to-ripoff/
http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/27/customer-survey-scams-from-reward-to-ripoff/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 15:38:34 +0000http://blog.aarp.org/?p=117252Giving your two cents in some telephone, text-message or online “customer satisfaction” surveys can come at a steep cost: an endless barrage of more phone calls, pop-up messages and spam; malware to compromise your smartphone or computer or to steal sensitive files; or even identity theft.

According to the Better Business Bureau, the latest survey scam making the rounds involves emails supposedly from leading retailers including Macy’s and Walgreens. In the scheme, you’re told you’ve been selected to complete a survey about a recent shopping experience and asked to complete a questionnaire for $100 or more in “bonus points.” Watch out for subject lines including “Your Reward Points Are Expiring. Claim Now!” or “Your eBalance Points Are Expiring Soon!”

Some versions lead to a survey that ends with pitches for bogus weight-loss products or wrinkle creams. Other variations request your banking and credit card information, allegedly to reward you for participating. And, of course, clicking on the provided link may also install malware on your computer.

Promising an incentive for consumers’ opinions is an old trick and, apparently, a successful one for scammers. “People often put their guard up during a sales pitch,” explains Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson. “By contrast, during a survey they may let their guard down.” A few softball questions may prime the pump, but then comes the gotcha: high-pressure sales pitches (sometimes touted as free trials) and/or attempts to glean sensitive personal and financial information to steal your identity. And once you participate, expect to be placed on a Sucker List shared among con artists, who will target you for more of the same ruses.

What you should know:

Legitimate companies may ask about your customer experience after a purchase, say, by sending a personalized email after you receive an online order. But don’t trust unsolicited, out-of-the-blue inquiries, especially those that start with “Dear Customer.” Bona fide surveys should include your name; unless you provided a company with your phone number or email, it is unlikely to contact you.

Be suspicious of “simple” sign-ups. Surveys that ask for only your name, email or phone number tend to be bogus. Although market research companies do pay for customer opinions, you usually have to enroll on their websites, as opposed to their sending out blast emails or making random phone calls. And you’re asked for more detailed shopping and demographic information so they can better target panelists.

If you get an email supposedly from a well-known company, before clicking, hover your computer mouse over the URL or link. If the address doesn’t end with the company’s name and .com, it’s probably a scam or malware. When legitimate vendors conduct surveys, they often lead back to the company website.

Beware of “Act Now” urgency. Pushing you into quick action, before you have time to think, is the calling card of many scams, including those involving surveys.

Don’t provide sensitive information. When legitimate surveys offer payment for your opinions, expect a coupon or other reward emailed or mailed to an address the company already has on file. Never reveal bank or credit card information based on the claim that your reward will be direct-deposited into your account.

For information about other scams, sign up for the Fraud Watch Network. You’ll receive free email alerts with tips and resources to help you spot and avoid identity theft and fraud, and gain access to a network of experts, law enforcement and people in your community who will keep you up to date on the latest scams in your area.

]]>http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/25/11-things-we-didnt-know-last-week-83/feed/0Rate of Americans Without Health Insurance Hit New Low in 2014http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/24/rate-of-americans-without-health-insurance-hit-new-low-in-2014/
http://blog.aarp.org/2015/02/24/rate-of-americans-without-health-insurance-hit-new-low-in-2014/#commentsTue, 24 Feb 2015 16:51:31 +0000http://blog.aarp.org/?p=117047WASHINGTON (AP) — The share of Americans without health insurance dropped to its lowest level in seven years in 2014 as President Barack Obama’s overhaul took full effect, according to an extensive survey released Tuesday.

No state saw a statistically significant increase in the share of its residents uninsured. However, states that have embraced the health care law continued to outperform those where political opposition remains strong.

Ten of the 11 states with the biggest declines in their uninsured rates accepted the health care law’s Medicaid expansion, which provides safety-net coverage for low-income residents, mainly adults with no children living at home. Topping the list were Arkansas and Kentucky, with double-digit decreases.

Montana, in the midst of an oil boom, was the exception among the top-performing states. Its uninsured rate dropped by 4.9 percentage points from 2013 to 2014, although that state has not expanded Medicaid and is letting the federal government run its online insurance market.

In addition to expanded Medicaid, Obama’s law offers subsidized private coverage for people who don’t have access to it on the job. The federal government is running the online insurance markets, or exchanges, in most states.

The Gallup report comes at a time of continuing uncertainty over the health care law. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that challenges insurance subsidies for residents of states that have not set up insurance exchanges, defaulting instead to federal management. The federal HealthCare.gov currently serves 37 states.

The survey is considered authoritative because it combines the speed of media polls with the thoroughness of large government studies. Pollsters interview 500 people a day, 350 days a year. In 2014, that added up to nearly 177,000 adults age 18 and older.

Comparing full-year results, Gallup found a drop of 3.5 percentage points in the share of Americans without health insurance from 2013 to 2014.

The five most populous states all saw declines. For California, it was a drop of 6.3 percentage points; Texas, 2.6 points; Florida, 3.8 points; New York, 2.5 points; and Illinois, 4.5 points.

Texas remained the state with the highest uninsured rate, at 24.4 percent, while Massachusetts had the lowest, at 4.6 percent. Massachusetts had expanded coverage earliest, under former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, whose approach foreshadowed some of the central elements of Obama’s law.

Dan Witters, research director for the poll, said about 12.3 million fewer adults were uninsured in the last three months of 2014, when compared with the third quarter of 2013, when HealthCare.gov was launched.

The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1 to 2 percentage points for most states. The ongoing survey plans to report in April on the law’s impact in the first three months of this year.

President Barack Obama announces plans to create new rules to protect investors and their retirement savings. AARP Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

President Barack Obama called on the Department of Labor today to draw up a rule to protect people who save in IRAs, 401(k)s and other workplace retirement plans from hidden fees and expenses that may drain billions from their accounts.

The president wants brokers and other professionals to be required to act in an investor’s best interest — instead of their own — when dispensing advice on retirement accounts.

“Right now there are no uniform rules of the road that require retirement advisers to act in the best interest of their clients, and that’s hurting millions of working and middle-class families,” said Obama, during an announcement this afternoon at the Washington headquarters of AARP.

“There are a lot of very fine financial advisers out there, but there are financial advisers who receive backdoor payments or hidden fees for steering people into bad retirement investments that have high fees and low returns…. They might even recommend investments with worse returns simply because they get paid to recommend those products,” he said. “The truth is, most people don’t even realize that is happening.”

A proposed rule by the Labor Department would dramatically alter 40-year-old regulations. Eliminating conflicts of interest by those giving retirement advice could prevent investors from losing as much as $17 billion a year that now goes to advisers and their firms in the form of “backdoor payments” and “hidden fees,” the White House said in a report released today.

“In today’s world it’s hard enough to save for retirement and achieve your financial goals. We don’t need to make it more difficult by allowing some in the financial industry to take advantage of hardworking Americans,” said AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins. “All advice should be in the best interest of the consumer. Bad advice is just wrong — period.

“People deserve investment advice based on what’s truly best for them and their financial future. And AARP supports having investment professionals put consumers’ interests first — ahead of their own personal gain,” Jenkins said.

The Labor Department is expected to submit the draft rule to the Office of Management and Budget today. The proposal later will be available to the public for comment.

The rules governing investment advice in retirement plans were established back in 1975 and haven’t changed much since. The retirement landscape, though, has dramatically shifted. Forty years ago, many workers were covered by a traditional pension that made the investing decisions for them. Now, the majority of retirement savings — more than $11 trillion — are held in IRAs and 401(k)s, where the investing burden often rests on the shoulders of the worker.

While the investment industry and consumer advocates agree that workers can benefit from financial education and advice, they part ways on how it’s delivered.

Currently, registered investment advisers must act in the best interest of their clients — a standard called “fiduciary duty.” However, some brokers and other financial professionals advising on IRAs and workplace retirement plans need only make sure the investment is “suitable” based on, say, investors’ ages or how much risk they can handle.

And a suitable investment isn’t necessarily the best one for you — or the least expensive. For example, a broker choosing between two mutual funds to recommend to you might select the one that pays him or her a higher commission or generates more annual fees for the firm.

The typical saver could lose more than a quarter of his or her retirement savings over 35 years from conflicted advice, the president said.

According to a fact sheet released by the White House, the Labor Department’s proposal would require brokers and other professionals to act in workers’ and retirees’ best interest — although they could still earn sales commissions. Also, advisers won’t have to adhere to a fiduciary standard if they are only offering general financial education to workers and retirees with IRAs and workplace retirement accounts.

This isn’t the first time the Labor Department has tackled this issue. A similar proposal was made in 2010. After feedback from the industry and investor advocates, the agency withdrew its proposal to work on it some more.

A lot is at stake. Both investor advocates and representatives from the industry have been making their case in the court of public opinion lately.

AARP along with several other groups representing consumers and workers formed a coalition and companion website in January to urge the Labor Department to raise the standard for advice on retirement accounts. AARP has also created this action page where you can lend your voice to the debate.

Meanwhile, the investment industry warned that holding it to the higher standard could actually hurt workers and retirees.

“The new regulation could limit investor choice, cause inconsistencies as different regulators would apply different standards to the same retirement accounts, prohibit access to investor guidance, and raise the costs of saving for retirement,” Kenneth E. Bentsen Jr., president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said in a statement.

The debate is far from over. Meanwhile, investors seeking professional advice with 401(k)s and IRAs need to know how their advisers are being compensated and if they have any conflicts of interest. And the best way to find out now is to ask.